Uh... no. For most of the HYW the French military relied on the feudal levy, primarily the knights and their retainers and tactical auxiliaries with the poor-quality commoners for (questionable) support. That one was very much a case in point of the post-Carolingian decline in the quality of the peasant infantry and the dominance of the feudal cavalryman (and his sub-feoffed auxiliaries).

Conversely the English kings waged their continental wars with basically paid armies hired from their domestic feudal warrior aristocracy and the freeholder yeomanry (who supplied the archers); a much better organized and controllable bunch, and rather more professional on the whole.

Both, of course, added as many mercenaries of diverse competences as they could get.

That's a bit oversimplified take of it (for example the English recruitement arrangement was rather more complicated), but covers the basics. The basic amateurism of the feudal war-host was and its resultant tactical clumsiness were a recurring problem for the French - their most famous defeats were more or less directly the result of just that. In smaller engagements, where competent commanders weren't overruled by social superiors and the feudal squadrons were more in their element (they only became unmanageable when large numbers were massed into one army), they actually did fairly well overall.